EU Law

Origins of European Integration

• European integration must be understood against the backdrop of World War II. The devastation of the war led to a shared recognition among European states that traditional systems of sovereign competition had failed. The central objective was therefore to secure lasting peace through structural interdependence.

• The key innovation was the idea of supranational governance, whereby states would transfer decision-making authority to a central body. 

The Treaty of Paris 1951

• established the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC),

  placing control of coal and steel production under a joint authority

• This reflects an early form of functional integration, whereby cooperation in specific sectors would generate wider political integration.

The Treaty of Rome 1957

• The Treaty of Rome significantly expanded the scope of integration through the establishment of the European Economic Community (EEC).

• Its primary objective was the creation of a common market, characterised by:

  a. Free movement of goods

  b. Free movement of services

  c. Free movement of capital

  d. Free movement of persons

NOTE: The treaty did not immediately spell out the idea that an individual could use EU law in their own national court to challenge their government, but it laid a foundation which was later confirmed in the case of Van Gend en Loos (1963)

How did the Maastricht Treaty help with the evolution and deepening of integration and democracy?

• The Maastricht Treaty marked a decisive shift from economic to political integration. It formally established the European Union and introduced several key innovations:

• Creation of European Union citizenship

→ Establishment of a three-pillar structure (European Communities, Common Foreign and Security Policy, Justice and Home Affairs)

• Expansion of EU competences beyond purely economic matters

→ This Treaty reflects the growing ambition of the integration project and its movement towards a broader constitutional framework.

• It introduced co-legislating and it created the position of the European Ombudsman to allow citizens to officially report administrative malpractice by EU institutions.

How did the Lisbon Treaty 2009 help with the evolution and deepening of integration and democracy?

The Lisbon Treaty restructured the EU and addressed institutional and democratic concerns. Key

developments include:

1. Abolition of the pillar structure

2. Strengthening of the European Parliament

3. Formal recognition of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as legally binding

4. Clarification of competences between the EU and Member States

• The Lisbon Treaty 2009 reinforced the idea that the EU has its own constitutional/legal framework, rather than simply being an international organisation.

Theoretical Approaches to Integration

1. Neofunctionalism

• Integration is driven by “spillover” effects

• Cooperation in one sector leads to integration in others

• Supranational institutions (e.g., Commission) play a central role

This theory explains the gradual expansion of EU competences over time.

2. Intergovernmentalism

• Member States remain the primary actors and work together

• Integration occurs only where states choose to cooperate

• National interests dominate decision-making

This perspective emphasises the continued importance of state sovereignty.

3. Delegation and Supranational Governance

   • Modern scholarship highlights the role of delegation, where Member States transfer powers to

   • EU institutions for efficiency and credibility.

   This explains:

   i. The strength of institutions such as the Commission

ii. The ability of the EU to act independently of individual Member States

Key Case Law:

Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen

Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen

Facts:

• A Dutch company challenged a customs duty imposed by the Netherlands, arguing it

breached EU law.

Issue:

• Can individuals rely directly on EU law in national courts?

Rule:

• EU law can create directly effective rights for individuals.

Application:

• The provision in question imposed a clear obligation on Member States, making it

suitable for judicial enforcement.

Outcome:

• The Court held that individuals can enforce EU law in national courts.

Importance:

• Establishes the EU as a new legal order, central to all later doctrines (supremacy, direct effect).

J Weiler, The Transformation of Europe

Weiler argues that the EU has undergone a profound transformation from an international organisation into a constitutional legal order, driven largely by the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice.

for example…Van Gend en Loos (1963)
→ Direct effect
→ Individuals can rely on EU law in national courts.

Institutional Framework + where to find it

• The EU operates through a structured institutional framework established under Article 13 TEU. This provision defines the institutions and their respective roles, ensuring that the Union’s powers are exercised in a coherent and balanced manner.

• The key principle governing this system is institutional balance, which requires each institution to act within the limits of its competences and respect the powers of the others.

→ Unlike traditional constitutional systems, the EU does not follow a strict separation of powers (kind of more for national levels).

→ Instead, it adopts a functional distribution of authority, where institutions share and interact in decision-making processes. Can argue there is checks and balances as well

European Commission

Role:

• Acts as the executive and guardian of the Treaties

Core Functions:

• Proposes legislation (monopoly of legislative initiative in most areas)

• Oversees implementation of EU law

• Initiates infringement proceedings against Member States

Arguablly the most powerful institution

Legal Significance:

• The Commission plays a central role in ensuring compliance with EU law, reinforcing

the supranational nature of the Union.

European Parliament

Role:

• Represents EU citizens

Core Functions:

• Co-legislates with the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure

• Exercises democratic oversight

• Approves the EU budget

Legal Significance:

• The Parliament enhances the democratic legitimacy of the EU, particularly following

reforms under the Lisbon Treaty.

Why it matters:

1. Central to addressing the democratic deficit (The Parliament is directly elected by EU citizens. Therefore, giving it more power gives citizens a greater role in the EU's decision-making process.)

2. Increasing legislative power over time

Council of the European Union

Role:

• Represents Member State governments

Core Functions:

• Co-legislates with Parliament

• Coordinates national policies

• Adopts EU legislation

Legal Significance:

• The Council reflects the intergovernmental dimension of the EU.

→ The Council is made up of a minister from each Member State, with the minister changing depending on the subject being discussed. So when the Council makes EU decisions, national governments have a direct role in shaping EU policy and legislation.

Why it matters:

1. Ensures Member State control within the legislative process

2. Balances supranational institutions

European Council

Role:

• Provides overall political direction

Core Functions:

• Sets strategic priorities

• Does not legislate

Legal Significance:

• Represents the highest level of political coordination between Member States.

Why it matters:

1. Drives major Treaty reforms

2. Reflects political leadership of the EU

Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

Role:

• Ensures uniform interpretation and application of EU law

Core Functions:

• Interprets EU law (Article 267 TFEU)

• Reviews the legality of EU acts (Article 263 TFEU)

• Enforces compliance

Legal Significance:

• The Court is central to the development of EU law as a constitutional legal order.

Why it matters:

1. Developed doctrines such as:

2. Direct effect

3. Supremacy

4. Key driver of integration (Weiler)

Who brings cases to the CJEU?

• Individuals and companies

  • Can bring an action against an EU institution if they meet the requirements.

• Member States

  • Can bring proceedings against another Member State for failing to comply with EU law.

• EU institutions

  • Institutions such as the European Commission, Parliament and Council can bring cases to challenge the legality of EU acts or resolve institutional disputes.

Does the EU Practice Institutional Balance?

The EU institutional framework is governed by the principle of institutional balance, meaning:

1. Each institution must act within its assigned competences

2. No institution may encroach upon the powers of another

This principle ensures:

a. Accountability

b. Legitimacy

c. Proper functioning of the legislative process

→ It operates as a substitute for traditional separation of powers.

What is direct effect?

• Principle not included in treaties but developed by the EU court

• Established in the case of Van Gend

• allows individuals to rely on EU law directly in their national court and enforce said right and ensure EU law effectiveness.

• There is vertical direct effect and horizontal direct effect

what are the conditions of direct effect

• set out in van gend

• Conditions from Van Gend

  Have evolved over the years, but these are the original conditions

  1. Clear

  2. Unconditional

  3. Not dependent on any subsequent/further implementation measures by Member State or community - has to be a stand-alone provision (whatever article it is, it must stand on its own two legs - can’t only happen alongside another article)

  The standard formula of the Court today:

  Case C-62/00 Mars & Spencer):

  1. Unconditional

  2. Sufficiently precise (clear)

  3. The Member State in question failed to implement the directive by the end of the period prescribed there in or failed to implement the directive correctly.

  → slightly diff from original

  → directly about directives (the problem here)

what is vertical direct effect and what legal instruments can have it?

• Between the individual and the state

1. Treaty articles

2. Regulations

·      The idea that regulations can have direct effect comes from a provision in an article rather than case law. However, as we saw, the direct effect doctrine itself came from the Van Gend case.

·      not problematic

Article 288 TFEU: ‘A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding
in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.’

3. Decisions
   Case 9/70, Grad

4. Directives

·      issues coming from directives are where indirect effect came from

Q: if directives aren’t precise and don’t match van Gend criteria - how can it have direct effect?

Case C-41/74, Van Duyn:
“DIRECTIVE NO 64/221 OF 25 FEBRUARY 1964 CONFERS ON INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS WHICH ARE ENFORCEABLE BY THEM IN THE COURTS OF A MEMBER STATE AND WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS MUST PROTECT.” (Para 15)

what is horizontal direct effect and what legal instruments can have it?

Between two private parties

Case 43/75 Defrenne v Sebena answers the question as to whether direct effect can apply horizontally.

 Private parties = individuals, companies, etc.

1. Treaty articles

2. Regulations

AG in Case C-253/00 Munoz and Superior
Fruiticola - demonstrates one person can take on another person (civil action in this case) and the other person has not complied with EU regulation.

3. Decisions
   Case 9/70, Grad:

NOT DIRECTIVES!!

What does supremacy of Law mean in the context of the EU?

• EU law prevails over national law

• Comes from the COSTA v ENEL (C - 6/36) case, EU primary law (treaties) prevail over domestic law

• About the integrity of EU law when there is a clash- about all member states complying with EU law at the same time in the same way – consistently

• EU law prevailing for effectiveness

How does supremacy apply to the Member States? secondar legislation?

• It also applies to EU secondary legislation (directives, regulations, decisions). International Handelgesellschaft (C-11-70)

what happens when national judges do not have the power to interfer with domestic law

Simmenthal = ECJ said that in such situations where judges can’t amend the national law, judges need to temporarily ignore/set aside national law – not invalidate it – they just don’t apply it. Of course, this was another controversial decision

Marleasing = National law must, as far as possible, be construed so as to comply with the Member State’s obligations under the Treaties. aka make it make sense under EU law

• If consistent interpretation proves impossible
  (contra legem incompatibility): disapplication

• Disapplication is a tool of last resort!

·       Supremacy is a principle of last resort

Example = Commission v Poland 2025

what is the difference between a monism regime and a dualist regime and how does the priciple of surpremacy apply?

Monism regime: No distinction between international law (EU) and domestic (national member state) law. Once a treaty is signed, individuals can go to national courts to defend their rights stated in the treaty. EX: Netherlands, France

Dualist regime: International law (EU) and domestic (national member state) law are in two completely distinct places. If you want international law to be accepted into domestic law, it must be passed and incorporated through an act of parliament. Only then can an individual challenge international law in a domestic court/ tribunal. EX: UK, Germany

GERMANY – Solange case

·       supremacy wouldn’t apply to human rights - went against international law

HOWEVER - Solange II

Where..

·       If the general level of protection of human rights in the EU is not equivalent to the standard  of protection by the German Constitution – supremacy is softened (in comparison to Solange)

·       Where EU law impinges on areas of constitutional identity: criminal law, war and peace, public expenditures and taxation, welfare, culture and religion (Lisbon) → generally speaking, where supremacy won’t apply

·       Where EU institutions have manifestly exceeded the limits of their competences (“ultra vires”) → supremacy won’t apply

 

What case adopted / embraced the priciple of surpremacy in the UK? Does it still matter post- Brexit?

Factortame (no2):

• UK willingly agreed to join the EU

• EU law needs to have the same effect on the UK as on the rest of the member states (direct effect)

• How the UK adopted/embraced the principle of supremacy

Still matters post-Brexit as recognised via A4 withdrawal agreement

Withdrawal Act 2018 – Section 7A (NI) - Dillion